(01-02-2013 09:38 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: The wikipedia article for Switzerland was for the ammunition supplied by the government. I realize they can still have personal ammo but the fact that the government recognizes the need to control ammunition is a good thing.

Like I said, let's just take from the 80's onward. There is more than one, there were 8 in that span that I mention and 9 if we take it back to the mid-70's. The reason that is important is that if we plot shooting incidents over time, they were averaging around 1 every 2 years from 1980 to 1995 (8 incidents divided by 15 years equals a rate of 0.5 incidents per year). Since the gun laws changed, they have been shooting-free for >10 years.

To the point on my "tax the hell out of them" solution, I did not say tax everything into oblivion. That does not mean a bullet should be taxed at $10 per but maybe an increase of 50 cents per or a dollar per and guns get taxed differently depending on its use. Ergo, rifles for hunting are considered luxury since you don't need to hunt (very few do and they could get an exemption based on income) and are at a higher rate than those bought for defense.

And you are making an assumption that the government will just misuse or screw-up the taxation because you don't like the government charging more taxes. The solution to our problems is not to get rid of government, nor is it to blindly trust it. But it certainly isn't to just assume that all government is bad and inefficient.

I am well aware of just how poor most of Tennessee is (heck, I ain't feeding towards the top of the barrel either) but places like that arguably need guns for self-defense the least as rural areas have lower crime rates. I know how much some of them spend on guns and ammunition and taxing it would not break them (like my brother). Additional taxes for his hobby is not adding any real burden. Now, the people who don't make as much and spend more on their guns? Yea. They are going to have to get a new hobby besides their death machine.

What is the tax for? Is it merely punitive? A sin tax? Taxation for social engineering?

No, that would be a true douchebag move. And while I am an asshole, I am not that big of one. The taxes would go towards paying for the background checks and mental health checks necessary to evaluate the individuals buying guns and ammunition.

Ergo, the taxes would fund mental health specialists and researchers to monitor and evaluate the gun owners registering and re-registering their weapons. Not simply a money-making tool but one that gets funneled right back into the system being taxed. Perhaps it would even be enough to fund more police officers whose job is specifically enforcement of gun laws. Basically, that person would be like a constable and would have the job of securing unauthorized weapons or making them inoperational until the owner reconciles whatever issue caused them to lose their rights to its use.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley

(01-02-2013 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote: What is the tax for? Is it merely punitive? A sin tax? Taxation for social engineering?

No, that would be a true douchebag move. And while I am an asshole, I am not that big of one. The taxes would go towards paying for the background checks and mental health checks necessary to evaluate the individuals buying guns and ammunition.

Ergo, the taxes would fund mental health specialists and researchers to monitor and evaluate the gun owners registering and re-registering their weapons. Not simply a money-making tool but one that gets funneled right back into the system being taxed. Perhaps it would even be enough to fund more police officers whose job is specifically enforcement of gun laws. Basically, that person would be like a constable and would have the job of securing unauthorized weapons or making them inoperational until the owner reconciles whatever issue caused them to lose their rights to its use.

I would support that kind of taxation. In fact, I do support that kind of taxation in all areas.

However, the track record of governments actually being able to follow through on that kind of tax is quite poor. The legislatures change the law to allow the funds to be used in other ways.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(01-02-2013 09:58 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: No, that would be a true douchebag move. And while I am an asshole, I am not that big of one. The taxes would go towards paying for the background checks and mental health checks necessary to evaluate the individuals buying guns and ammunition.

Ergo, the taxes would fund mental health specialists and researchers to monitor and evaluate the gun owners registering and re-registering their weapons. Not simply a money-making tool but one that gets funneled right back into the system being taxed. Perhaps it would even be enough to fund more police officers whose job is specifically enforcement of gun laws. Basically, that person would be like a constable and would have the job of securing unauthorized weapons or making them inoperational until the owner reconciles whatever issue caused them to lose their rights to its use.

I would support that kind of taxation. In fact, I do support that kind of taxation in all areas.

However, the track record of governments actually being able to follow through on that kind of tax is quite poor. The legislatures change the law to allow the funds to be used in other ways.

That is certainly a failing of the system and is primarily the result of people staying ignorant of when things like this occur. The point is not to demand less government, but to demand better government and to start to hold the legislators accountable for their actions. Which means booting their ass when they do stupid shit like that instead of just voting for a party since doing research on new candidates is hard.

Get the money to help improve the system and insure that the people police it. The biggest benefit of a democracy is that the people can enforce the rules by staying informed and staying on top of their legislators. You don't need guns in a democracy to make a change to the established government opinions.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley

(01-02-2013 10:12 AM)Chas Wrote: I would support that kind of taxation. In fact, I do support that kind of taxation in all areas.

However, the track record of governments actually being able to follow through on that kind of tax is quite poor. The legislatures change the law to allow the funds to be used in other ways.

That is certainly a failing of the system and is primarily the result of people staying ignorant of when things like this occur. The point is not to demand less government, but to demand better government and to start to hold the legislators accountable for their actions. Which means booting their ass when they do stupid shit like that instead of just voting for a party since doing research on new candidates is hard.

Get the money to help improve the system and insure that the people police it. The biggest benefit of a democracy is that the people can enforce the rules by staying informed and staying on top of their legislators. You don't need guns in a democracy to make a change to the established government opinions.

I've been preaching the "boot their sorry, dishonest asses out" line for years. It's not working.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(31-01-2013 09:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: If we really want to address the gun crime problem, we need to focus on the real causes of the crime, not the means the criminals use.

We may have to accept a certain number of gun murders annually as a negative byproduct of the 2nd Amendment and the benefits it brings.

I can not stand to see this argument unaddressed. It's nonsense, there already is and always has been movements and heavy focus on trying to solve crime and prevent the reasons that cause crime to happen. It's just not very effective but it isn't as if there isn't great debate on improving that as well. There are plenty of implications of laws working to make things better in low economic communities where crime rates rise or deal with metal health issues of people in every culture.

Just because we can't stop crime or metal illness, doesn't mean we shouldn't also try to lessen the issues from other fronts as well... and that includes limiting accidental deaths and crime deaths which might be fixable with different approaches to gun control.

I still don't see any case for why the regulations in place for destructive devices shouldn't be implemented further for more gun types if not to an extent, all.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(30-01-2013 07:22 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote: Where do you draw the line?

I never did answer the original post, though I think this has been discussed enough, even on here, that most people should know, most other people's view(s). After reading some more posts, here, I might as well answer the main point of the thread.

I think I draw the line at people thinking that they ought to have, or actually do have, an individual, right to own a weapon-- more so ought to have. At that point, it's liking walking into a conversation about religion, and then, faith is mentioned. Standing behind the 2nd Amendment, is like hiding behind a glass door, unlocked: I can see you on the other side, and I can just open the door. As quickly as a person could agree it protects individual right of ownership, or means this or that, someone else can come in and argue the opposite. It's up to the people to decide the extent of gun ownership, the 2nd Amendment only outlines the basic need to be able to protect sovereignty.

From Wikipedia, I saw a quote from Winston Churchill, describing fanaticism: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".

After viewing a good number of threads on guns, and opinions and views on guns, on television, the internet, around town, and by the same people or same types of people, hearing the same irrational bullshit and babble coming up over and over again for guns, with a preaching, persistence and religious dedication, that reminds me, almost every time, of people going on about how Jesus has helped their lives, with the same sort of justifications for why they are perfectly correct, rational and not crazy, and especially with how little the people on the opposite side actually show interest, and rivaling dedication in opposition (like how quickly "a ban on all guns" comes up and has to be corrected by the other side saying "who said ban all guns?"), I would definitely have to say fanaticism applies as a threshold.

If guns come up, then people start to bring up guns, laws and why they have an individual right to own one, with all of the reasons they dreamed up to justify it to themselves and others, it's probably an indication, an agreement won't happen.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(31-01-2013 10:25 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote: We may have to accept a certain number of gun murders annually as a negative byproduct of the 2nd Amendment and the benefits it brings.

I can not stand to see this argument unaddressed. It's nonsense, there already is and always has been movements and heavy focus on trying to solve crime and prevent the reasons that cause crime to happen. It's just not very effective but it isn't as if there isn't great debate on improving that as well. There are plenty of implications of laws working to make things better in low economic communities where crime rates rise or deal with metal health issues of people in every culture.

Just because we can't stop crime or metal illness, doesn't mean we shouldn't also try to lessen the issues from other fronts as well... and that includes limiting accidental deaths and crime deaths which might be fixable with different approaches to gun control.

I still don't see any case for why the regulations in place for destructive devices shouldn't be implemented further for more gun types if not to an extent, all.

I really would agree fully with anyone saying that there are other problem that need to be address, especially toward the end of lowering violence and crime, with guns or otherwise, but I would still think the question would have to be posed: Then how do we solve all of those problems? If you can't solve guns because of a specific type of opposition, does that just go away? Once we start talking about poverty and education, will magically, everything come together for an easy solution?

In my view, the same type of points of views, ideologies, fanaticism and general disagreement and opposition, going on in a gun debate, is going on in society, especially the USA, touching every single issue, and is basically a fundamental and underlying problem. Any future gun debate, or debate of any issue, might as well be titled, 'Why are human beings irrational?' or 'When will we all start to agree'. I think over time, we will see changes that lead to an overall agreement and direction, but until then, we might as well talk about the disagreements as opposed to, in the same way, over and over, disagreeing, in the exact same ways, with different, specific issues (or the same ones).

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

Comparing any position in any debate to religion is childish and unhelpful. Atheists can be described as being fanatical. Feminists can. LGBT supporters can. Any time you have a basic incompatibility of views and a degree of passion, the comparison with religion can be made. The problem is it can be made from both directions, and it does nothing to further or resolve the debate. Instead it incites anger and passion and leads to pissing matches about whose position is more religious than the other. It's unhelpful.

It comes down to, "Do you see firearms as having a net negative effect on our society, or a net positive effect?"

I say: a very slight negative, but the "cures" proposed are generally worse than the original problem. If this nation had started gun-free and stayed gun-free, then fine, we wouldn't have an issue here. But there are almost as many guns as people in America. "Gun type" or "assault weapon" bans are ineffective and pointless. Ammunition limit bans are just... idiotic on every level. Waiting periods have indeterminate outcomes. The only thing that will be really effective at "solving" this "gun problem" is a total gun ban, and that will cause social problems and hatred that will last a century or more. Not worth it.

There are things we can do to improve our gun laws, which are practical and achievable in the current political climate. We can improve the background check system and laws governing gun sales. We can make Bumpski stocks NFA-regulated machine gun parts. We could, I dunno, legalize marijuana and thus decriminalize a large part of the population and significantly decrease the power of gangs and drug cartels which make up a large portion of gun crime anyway. Those are actually helpful ideas. "You can't have that type of gun!" is not.

(01-02-2013 01:08 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Comparing any position in any debate to religion is childish and unhelpful. Atheists can be described as being fanatical. Feminists can. LGBT supporters can. Any time you have a basic incompatibility of views and a degree of passion, the comparison with religion can be made. The problem is it can be made from both directions, and it does nothing to further or resolve the debate. Instead it incites anger and passion and leads to pissing matches about whose position is more religious than the other. It's unhelpful.

It comes down to, "Do you see firearms as having a net negative effect on our society, or a net positive effect?"

I say: a very slight negative, but the "cures" proposed are generally worse than the original problem. If this nation had started gun-free and stayed gun-free, then fine, we wouldn't have an issue here. But there are almost as many guns as people in America. "Gun type" or "assault weapon" bans are ineffective and pointless. Ammunition limit bans are just... idiotic on every level. Waiting periods have indeterminate outcomes. The only thing that will be really effective at "solving" this "gun problem" is a total gun ban, and that will cause social problems and hatred that will last a century or more. Not worth it.

There are things we can do to improve our gun laws, which are practical and achievable in the current political climate. We can improve the background check system and laws governing gun sales. We can make Bumpski stocks NFA-regulated machine gun parts. We could, I dunno, legalize marijuana and thus decriminalize a large part of the population and significantly decrease the power of gangs and drug cartels which make up a large portion of gun crime anyway. Those are actually helpful ideas. "You can't have that type of gun!" is not.

While I generally agree with this, I think you don't go quite far enough in analyzing the problem and the solution.

Much of the crime and violence are due to the "War on Drugs", poor social services, and an abysmal mental health care system. And the prison population largely reflects this.

We need to have a real health care system, decriminalization of drugs, and uniform firearms laws.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(30-01-2013 07:22 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote: Where do you draw the line?

Standing behind the 2nd Amendment, is like hiding behind a glass door, unlocked: I can see you on the other side, and I can just open the door. As quickly as a person could agree it protects individual right of ownership, or means this or that, someone else can come in and argue the opposite. It's up to the people to decide the extent of gun ownership, the 2nd Amendment only outlines the basic need to be able to protect sovereignty.

From Wikipedia, I saw a quote from Winston Churchill, describing fanaticism: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".

If it could be shown that you can save just one life by curtailing the Bill or Rights ie the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth Amendmens or any other civil liberty, would you?

The issue here is that rights do come with responsibilities. And we accept certain tradeoffs for the benefits provided by these liberties.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."